On 25 January 2019, the tailings dam of a deactivated iron ore mine in the Brazilian municipality of Brumadinho failed, releasing toxic mud that caused devastation and 117 deaths and intergenerational ecological and economic consequences.
It should, and could, have been prevented by the company, Vale, who was also responsible for past tailings dam destruction. Today the polluted mudflow, which is leftover redundant mining materials, is still impacting communities downstream from the main river in the region, affecting thousands.
The Brumadinho mining disaster is not an isolated incident and comes after two other recent tailings dam failures in the country, of which both have been found to be preventable. It is the tip of a complex issue that reflects a deeper regulatory and moral problem where profit is prioritised over people, ecological communities, human and eco-systems, to the point of large-scale destruction. In this case economic livelihoods of local communities are not only diminished but, along with the habitat that sustains these communities, destroyed.
The impact is widespread and indeterminate as yet. It's not only the local town of 40,000 people; the toxic mud flowed up the main river impacting on livelihoods and ecosystems all the way to the Indian Ocean. The capacity to calculate the economic impact is impossible, as effects will be intergenerational and are yet to appear or even be predicted.
The common usage of the word 'disaster' implies large-scale accidents or natural events that cause widespread harm. We live in an age where a natural disaster is never a purely natural event. Especially when it comes to mining and extractive industries, the causes of the harm are readily traced to human activity. Some claim these are not sites of failure, disasters or accidents, but are crime scenes. We live in an interdependent relationship with nature, ecosystems and our habitat, with subsequent ethical responsibilities to care for these vital, life giving relationships.
This event is not isolated, with similar situations occurring all over the world in various manifestations and ways (small to large). The outcomes of this kind of ecological destruction point to a failure of law and governance in setting limits on the negligent and harmful activities of markets and industries. Current global governance is failing short in ensuring widespread protection of the commons and solidarity with the poor, and is consistently complicit with the profit imperative which drives many decisions. While this disaster has occurred as a result of corporate decision making of the companies involved, Vale in particular, the role of the state as a caretaker of the land and ecosystems within its care is notably absent.
In the background of many ecological industrial destruction events is a complex causal chain which should be analysed against the question of whether the imperative to make a profit was made at the expense of the common good, solidarity, respect for local peoples and healthy eco systems.
"This Faustian deal, to gain short-term economic gain over intergenerational health and wellbeing, is replicated the world over."
The common good, our common home, includes not only our human community but also the rivers, forests, built environment, seas and air. It is becoming apparent that activities that were initially justified, and given approval for, on the basis of benefits to local economic livelihoods end up causing mass destruction. The justification of extractive industries for approvals and permits is often based primarily upon the economic benefit to local communities in the short term.
This Faustian deal, to gain short-term economic gain over intergenerational health and wellbeing, is replicated the world over. Indigenous people, often the most economically marginalised, often feel forced into having to choose between protecting their lands or economic survival.
Our understanding of justice and responsibility needs to expand to face the challenges of our time. Too often the ecological legacy after companies have made their profit, decommissioned mines and moved on, is a toxic time-bomb that strips communities of life, livelihoods and healthy eco-systems for generations to come. Human and civil rights without ecological protection and care prove useless in situations such as this event in Brazil.
Governments at all levels, the world over, have a responsibility to respond to the problems of local communities within their care. It is also a responsibility of the international community and more economically powerful nations, where many of the most exploitative extractive companies are based, to create good governance that protects eco-systems and marginalised communities even outside their own countries. Care for our common home and intergenerational equity could expand legal and ethical tenets such as the precautionary principle so that it is used to minimise both risks and maximise the health of the communities and environments governments are mandated to govern for and with.
Since the Brumadinho destruction, the United Nations Environment Program has released a report predicting more tailings dam breakages are to be expected globally. There is an increasing awareness that short-term profit should not be prioritised over safety and wellbeing of affected communities, inclusive of intergenerational ecological impacts.
What does care for our common home mean in light of these events of environmental destruction? There is an increasing call for legal consequences for those whose decision making cause such destructive outcomes. These include prison time for company directors, fines that have a significant impact on the company's bottom line and a change to international culture that would see businesses held responsible for protecting human and environmental rights.
The moral responsibility to repair damage done by perpetrators remains. All too often this responsibility has been shirked by the manipulation of legal processes as seen in the Chevron/Texaco case in Ecuador.
What does restorative justice mean in the face of deactiviated mines where volumes of potentially ecocidal materials have been left behind? What does restorative justice mean for the communities and eco-systems devastated by 'failures' or negligence? Do they, can they, rebuild? Is this an opportunity to re-examine our legal, ethical and community relationship with our common home? What responsibilities do we have towards generations to come?
The Brumadinho destruction is a consequence of a deep ethical and moral problem where obligations and responsibility towards each other, and our habitat, are not prioritised in law or reality. This needs to change.
It is a little known but historic fact that El Salvador banned metal mining in 2017. The Catholic Church, on behalf of local communities facing the choice between water, health and more mining, was a major player in the successful passing of that law. It is a realistic option to reorientate our cultures and laws towards solidarity with all creation and to protect future generations.
Julie Edwards is the CEO of Jesuit Social Services.